RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ADDL. CIT-RANGE-3, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

purchase and stock for the year. All these facts stated in the reasons recorded are taken by the AO from the assessment record itself which manifest that after completing scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) the AO has reopened the assessment on the basis of the same facts and records available with him and no new material or facts which were

S GANDHI JEWELLERY PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. PCIT-1, INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaassessment Year: 2017-18 S. Gandhi Jewellery Pcit-1, Private Limited, Indore C/O Adv. Hitesh Chimnani, बनाम/ Ug-37 Trade Centre, Vs. 18, South Tukoganj, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aamcs1613G Assessee By Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Ar Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.02.2025

bogus purchases of gold amounting to Rs. 1,55,00,000/- from M/s N.S. Jewellers & Bullion during FY 2016-17. The AO issued a notice under section 148 on 31/03/2021 after forming a belief that income had escaped assessment. The appellant contended that the reasons recorded for reopening

JAI PRAKASH SHAHANI,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Boradjai Prakashshahani, Income Tax Officer, Prop. M/S Jai Prakash Impex, Nfac, Delhi Vs. 73, New Palasia, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Apqps7948G Assessee By Ms. Ruchira Singhal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 27.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.04.2025

assessment proceedings. She also stated that the approval u/s 151 of the Act is also mechanical in nature. She further stated that the reasons 4 Jai PrakashShahani– A.Y 2014-15 on the basis of which the case of the assessee has been reopened are regarding alleged bogus purchase

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE vs. FERRO CONCRETE CON INDIA PVT. LTD., INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2019-20 Deputy Commissioner Of Ferro Concrete Con India Income-Tax Pvt. Ltd., बनाम/ 3/5/7B, Bhagirathpura Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaacf2726K Revenueby Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Assessee By Shri Venus Rawka, Ar Date Of Hearing 17.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13.01.2026

bogus purchases. The Appellant in his written submission has primarily objected to reopening of assessment submitting that the AO has not made

SHRI BHAWANI SHANKAR PARASHAR,INDORE vs. THE DCIT/ACIT 1 (2), INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Bhawani Shankar Pr. Cit-1 Prashar Indore 28, Lasudia Mori, Vijay Vs. Nagar, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Bgbpp 2475 G Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.06.2023

reopening the case of the appellant merely on the basis of NMS information and without independent application of mind which is neither legal nor proper. 3.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld Assessing officer erred in re-opened the case by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act even when

DCIT KHANDWA, KHANDWA vs. M/S RAJRAJESHWAR COTTON CORPORATION, SENDHWA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal as well as Assessee’s Cross-

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) & C.O. No. 9/Ind/2020 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit M/S Raj Rajeshwar Cotton Khandwa Corporation, बनाम/ Warla Road, Sendhwa, Vs. District - Khandwa (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Aagfr 6243 N Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21.10.2022

assessment which is completed u/s 143(1) cannot be reopened without proper 'reason to believe'. If the reasons state that the information was received from the VAT Dept that the assessee had entered into bogus purchase

NARENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL,BURHANPUR vs. PCIT INDORE-1, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaninarendra Kumar Agrawal Pcit (1) 203, Ck Campus Aaykar Bhawan Bahadarpur Road Vs. Indore Burhanpur (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adapa0131B Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.08.2024

reopening of the assessment is the claim of loss of Rs.3,56,04,837/- from the F&O transactions carried out through M/s Xpro Securities was to be assessed tax by treating the same as fictitious entries of loss obtained by the assessee. During the reassessment proceedings the AO issued show cause notice u/s 142(1) dated 09.03.2022 which

HIMANSHU BOTADEARA HUF,INDORE vs. THE ITO 4(3), INDORE

In the result, these two appeals filed by the assesse are

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

purchase and sale of share and securities. The assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2011-12 on 16.12.2011 declaring total income at Rs. 5,02,650/-. Thereafter, the AO reopened the assessment by issuing a notice u/s 148 on 31st March, 2018, for assessing the income escaped assessment on account of bogus

HIMANSHU BOTADEARA HUF,INDORE vs. THE ITO 4(3), INDORE

In the result, these two appeals filed by the assesse are

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

purchase and sale of share and securities. The assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2011-12 on 16.12.2011 declaring total income at Rs. 5,02,650/-. Thereafter, the AO reopened the assessment by issuing a notice u/s 148 on 31st March, 2018, for assessing the income escaped assessment on account of bogus

THE ACIT, CIRCLE, RATLAM vs. M/S. MAHALAXMI INVESTMENT AND TRADING PVT. LTD., RATLAM

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Miss Madhumita Roy

Assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was completed on 28.03.2013 determining income at Rs.98,62,840/-. Notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 28.03.2014 to the assessee after recording reasons for reopening on the issue of bogus purchases

THE ACIT CIRCLE,RATLAM vs. M/S. MAHALAXMI INVESTMENT AND TRADING PVT. LTD., RATLAM

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Miss Madhumita Roy

Assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was completed on 28.03.2013 determining income at Rs.98,62,840/-. Notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 28.03.2014 to the assessee after recording reasons for reopening on the issue of bogus purchases

THE AIT,ENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SURYA INFRAVENTURE P LTD, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

bogus blasting expenses. The AO during the course of assessment proceedings found that assessee has claimed blasting expenses of Rs. 13,39,555/- , however, has submitted details of Rs. 1,01,330/- only which has also been reproduced by the AO on page no 3 of the impunged assessment order. The AO further observed that payments were made

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

bogus blasting expenses. The AO during the course of assessment proceedings found that assessee has claimed blasting expenses of Rs. 13,39,555/- , however, has submitted details of Rs. 1,01,330/- only which has also been reproduced by the AO on page no 3 of the impunged assessment order. The AO further observed that payments were made

THE ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

bogus blasting expenses. The AO during the course of assessment proceedings found that assessee has claimed blasting expenses of Rs. 13,39,555/- , however, has submitted details of Rs. 1,01,330/- only which has also been reproduced by the AO on page no 3 of the impunged assessment order. The AO further observed that payments were made

NILIMA KOTHARI,INDORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSTT. CENTRE, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Manish Boradsmt. Neelima Kothari, Income Tax Officer, 601, N.R.K. Villas, Delhi Vs. 22/2 Manoramaganj, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adnpk7832J Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.09.2024

reopening of assessment after the time limit permitted under the Act. Order so passed by Ld. CIT(A) therefore, is arbitrary, unjustified and bad in law. 02) Section 148: Issue: Proceedings of reassessment barred by time: That the CIT(A) erred in law in not appreciating the fact that notice under section 148 of the Act was issued based

THE ITO 4(4), INDORE vs. SHRI YOGENDRA SINGH THAKUR, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year : 2012-13 Ito 4(4), Shri Yogendra Singh Thakur, Indore Village Birgoda, Tehsil Depalpur, बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue) P.A. No. Admpt3091K Revenue By Shri K. G. Goyal, Sr. Dr Respondent By None Date Of Hearing: 18.07.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.07.2018

reopening of the assessment on the basis of the information received from Director of Revenue Intelligence was valid. Relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced below: “7. In the present case, no application of mind by the higher authority while granting permission resulted in an invalid notice under Section 147. Though the ITA T granted relief, it did not record

SANGITA LALWANI,ITARSI vs. ITO 1, ITARSI, ITARSI

In the result the “Impugned order” is set aside as and by

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshisangita Lalwani, Ito 1, बनाम/ Gali No.03, Sindhi Colony

purchases as bogus with such party M/s. National Metals as reasoned by AO in the assessment order. Further appellant also could not bring out such comparable facts of case and ratios of adjudication as attributable to these citations as reconcilable to appellant facts of case and circumstances so as to claim its applicability as per law. In the absence

DCIT(CENTRAL)-2, INDORE, INDORE vs. M/S KALYAN TOLL HIGHWAY PVT.LTD, INDORE

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2013-14 Dcit(Central)-2 M/S. Kalyan Toll Highway Pvt. Ltd. Indore Indore बनाम/ (Appellant) (Revenue ) Vs. P.A. No. Aadck9401F Appellant By Shri Harshit Bari, Sr. Dr Respondent By Shri Ajay Tulsiyan, Ca Date Of Hearing: 21.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.07.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M:

bogus expenditure on account of purchase of M/s. Kalyan toll Highways Pvt. Ltd. ITANo.85/Ind/2020 Bitumen and then inflated the project cost and concluded that the appellant had made a wrong claim on account of expenditure incurred against cost of the project under consideration and is in default for furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income and levied a penalty